How can you justify financing the BBC through the licence fee in a multi-channel, multi-platform, multi-everything world? Increasing numbers of people rarely watch its programmes and the fee is the nearest thing we have to a poll tax. If the BBC has its way, it will cost us all £180 a year by 2013.

Those arguing the case for the continuation of the BBC licence fee have not had their case made any easier by the weekend’s controversy over Jonathan Ross’s and Russell Brand’s prank phone calls. The Daily Hate-Mail’s overblown faux outrage is beside the point. The bigger issue is that stars such as Ross would be equally at home on ITV or Channel 4 – but the state-funded BBC outbid their advertising-dependent rivals.

Where once the licence fee levelled the playing field, allowing the BBC and ITV to compete to ratchet up standards, the BBC is now completely dominant, and commercial channels are rapidly withdrawing from their public service obligations. As recession reality bites, and advertising revenues dwindle, this process will only accelerate. ITV and Channels 4 and Five are certain to be looking for further programme budget cuts, leaving only the BBC to cater for those who value quality telly and radio. Which is fine, I guess, if you’re happy with the idea of a state-run monopoly, answerable only to a quango, funded by a regressive poll tax. But that’s not my liberal cup of tea.

So, two questions to ponder: (i) does the state have a role in the funding of broadcasting? (I say yes); and (ii) if it does, what’s the most efficient and effective way of funding public service broadcasting? In this poll, we’re looking only at the second question – but feel free to ponder (i) in the comments section – and asking you, LDV’s readers, the question: How do you think the BBC should be funded?

Here are your options:

> As at present, through the BBC licence fee
> Scrap the licence fee, but pay for the BBC through general taxation
> Scrap the licence fee, and let the BBC become a subscription-based members’ service
> Scrap the licence fee, and let the BBC compete for advertising revenue

103 Comments

I can’t vote. My option (a mixed model including scaling back the beeb, subscription, putting the revenue from the spectrum sale post switchover in a trust and encouraging people to donate to the trust tax free) isn’t on the list.

Scrap the license fee & let the BBC become subscription based.
We keep on being told how popular it is so they can expect literaly milions of subscribers.
If it has to continue ‘as is’ then limit it to maximum two TV channels and one radio station,we can then look forward to having the forced license fee cut.

To me, there’s two problems with the BBC. The first is the license fee, the second is the size of the corporation. I just don’t think it’s healthy for one broadcaster to be so overwhelmingly dominant, especially when it is effectivly unaccountable.

So I’d break the organisation up into little independent pieces, keeping just one channel to carry the actual public-service stuff financed out of general taxation while flogging the rest off to be paid for by subs or advertising.

Scaling back the BBC in order to reduce costs will be fought tooth and nail because the consequence of this is a reduction in the public service angle of broadcast media as it chases viewers.

The only alternative is to expand the public service remit and force it to provide greater in-depth coverage of those areas.

As a political anorak I’m a big fan of BBC Parliament and I think a similar model would also work for other areas. For example the financial crisis is showing there is an appetite for impartial market news and our conference recently discussed the idea of cameras in court – two areas where informative coverage sensitively handled would benefit public debate and audiences could be guaranteed.

The BBC cannot continue to disadvantage its excellence in specialisation by focussing on generalisation if it wants to retain the fee at its current level or higher, otherwise a more mixed funding mechanism should be required.

If BT hadn’t been privatised, we’d probably seen a move away from the TV license to a Internet license. Ah well.

I’d scrap the license fee and move over to direct taxation, in the same way that the NHS is funded from direct taxation. As both provide valuable services that the private sector wouldn’t find profitable.

The BBC needs to be maintained for the good of the country. You can argue whether or not to scrap it’s entertainment programming, but the news and current affairs needs to be guaranteed.

The country needs to have an impartial brand of news and documentary programming so that its citizens can make informed choices.

As we can see in the US, market forces only lead to highly partisan news and the kind documentaries that ignore the important, if obscure, topics to concentrate on mass market appeal.

I don’t know what kind of absolute barbarian would want to do away with the BBC’s service. Some kind of reform, yes, but a strong public sector broadcaster needs to exist.

This is not a cause which goes beyond a few Tory wingnuts who want a British Fox News & the absolutely rabid “libertarians”. Yes, there are problems, but they can be solved by a relentless focus on quality.

Going to the lowest common denominator has been a massive contributor to dumbing down, which is why Thatcher & followers are far more responsible for the swamp we live in than anything describable as “left”.

There are some public goods which should have nothing to do with the market & this is one of them.

In a culture rapidly descending into stupidity, savagery and the hero-worship of drooling inanity, the licence fee is one of the few in-built defences of the importance of intellect remaining. Scrap it if you will, but only if you are prepared to see Britain sink further into the primacy of people who are proud to be uneducated.

Totally support public service broadcasting – howver much of the BBCs product does not fulfill that remit. And some of the commercial broadcasters product does. Tax funding for “Aunties Bloopers” or “spooks”, whilst Dsipatches gets no state funding strikes me as odd.

In addition I cannot support the TV Licence. It is much more regressive than council tax and is perniciously enforced. Just because most people are used to paying it does not mean it is defensible. Indeed in an increasingly multi platform broadcasting world it will become a declining source of income and we need to be prepared for that.

I would like to see state funded public broadcasting system funded through direct taxation and/or a levy on commercial advertising income.

The BBC, for all its myriad faults, such as the obsession with yoof and the bizarre fascination with inviting people to text in about everything, remains the supreme broadcasting organisation in the world. No onther organsation comes close for news coverage, for new drama, for sitcoms, for excellent documentaries and for all the crap that keeps people entertained as well.

I’m happy to pay £11 a month for everything I get. It’s cheaper than my mobile phone and I get a hell of a lot more from it.

I’m even prepared to forgive them Rambling Jim Naughtie as I can at least take pleasure in not listening to his rantings.

Funding the BBC through general taxation gives the Government of day direct control over the BBC and would erode the BBC’s independence.

There would also be a temptation to cut the money in order to pay for other things.

A subscription based service would not provide enough money to fund the BBC properly and would undermine the commercial broadcasters (e.g. Sky) . Radio 3 for example would probably not get enough subscription to fund what it does now.

Funding the BBC by advertising would undermine Sky, ITV C4 and the other commercial broadcasters. And one of the things people like about the BBC is that there are no adverts.

Once the infrastructure is in place to do it (after digital switchover), make the BBC TV channels largely a subscriber service, with the exception of BBC News Channel, BBC Parliament and BBC1. Public service stuff is made for these channels, as well as some popular programming on BBC 1 (to maintain the viewing figures of the channel, otherwise it’s pointless because it’s not serving the public at large any more), funded by a much reduced license fee. Likewise charge people (worldwide) for access to the iPlayer (whilst beefing up what it provides), a service which I for one would be quite happy to pay a fair amount for.

Scrap Radio 1 and 2, which aren’t doing anything you can’t find commercially. Keep Radios 3, 4 and 5, as well as 6 Music and BBC7, all of which are excellent stations that put out a distinctive output you don’t find elsewhere.

As for the license fee, it should be reduced somewhat but kept, and used to fund the BBC 1, News and Parliament that I envisage above, as well as the radio stations. Top slice it, too, and give some to Channel 4 to make nice public service things.

The above is quite a list of demands, though, so if that can’t all happen, then I’ll reduce it to the core principle of what I want: I want the ability to watch TV and listen to radio that doesn’t have adverts. I hate adverts. As long as we can find a way to maintain this aspect of the BBC, I’m happy.

I am in near-total agreement with Andy Hinton’s views, & can’t think of any instance where he goes wrong, apart from his assessment of Radio 2 which produces some remarkably good programmes.

The BBC needs to become a bastion of standards. Moyles, Clarkson et al can stand or fall commercially, but services such as Radio 2, 3 & 4 should be preserved against the rampant market place surging down & down & down.

There should definitely be an emphasis on quality.

Nick Reynolds has made what I consider a persuasive argument. How can anyone here not be uncomfortable about what the usual fanatics on Conservative Home want to subject us to?

It seems once again we have a clash between theoreticians and pragmatists.

Yes, the licence fee is a regressive tax. So what? It works. There is nothing else in the world like the BBC, because there is nothing else funded like the BBC.

From being the voice of freedom in WWII and in its world service broadcasts to oppressed nations, to its current public service programming, to its frequent innovation in all aspects of communication, there is simply too much that is good about the BBC to throw it all away because it offends some abstract theory.

Surely one of the things that separates us from the loonier fringes of libertarianism and neoconservatism is the understanding that practical effectiveness should trump ideological purity?

The licence fee is a horrible regressive tax, and the database, administered by our old chums at Crapita plc, is obtrusive and inefficient. Far better to fund the BBC, or at the very least its news and public service broadcasting remit – which must be kept intact – by means of general taxation. Advertising would not be an acceptable method of funding; nobody wants the BBC to turn into Fox News.

Nick Reynolds – thanks for your response, but I have never understood the argument you make against public funding through other means:

“Funding the BBC through general taxation gives the Government of day direct control over the BBC and would erode the BBC’s independence.”

Yet the license fee review is sufficiently frequent that it provides as much political control in reality as a hypothecated portion of the income tax would. How about a BBC budget, paid from general taxation, set on the same cycle as the current license fee review?

I am staggered at how otherwise compassionate people are happy to support a poll tax just because its public faces are David Attenbrough, Simon Schama and Basil Brush.

The ‘if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it’ model used by some Lib Dem commenters is a pretty odd response. That could be the reply to almost every reform our party proposes, in any sphere.

Why not make the BBC explicitly democratic, and have its leadership subject to a public vote? It couldn’t possibly get any more abject and lowbrow than it is now, and electoral scrutiny would at least limit the bloated salaries of the likes of Ross and Brand.

Just out of interest, does anyone know how much of the ‘fee’ (ie bbc tax) is spent on collection/detection vans/persons who send threatening letters to people who doen’t watch tv/making and broadcasting scary ‘we’re going to get you’ ads?

Allowing people to subscribe to iplayer overseas would be brilliant and would probably raise a reasonable amount of money. I live overseas and would gladly pay almost any amount to be able to access the iplayer, mainly because I’d like to be able to watch question time and newsnight. The money could then pay for a reduced license fee. To be honest, given that it wouldn’t really cost them anything to make the iplayer available abroad, I can’t see why they haven’t done this already… would the guy from the BBC like to enlighten me?

As for the rest of it, definitely beef up the public service element but some of the programmes coming out of BBC 3 and BBC 4 have been excellent and I think it would be a shame to lose them.

If we have to pay a regressive tax for anything, I’d rather it were for things like the BBC, which I am highly proud of. Yes, it does things wrong – everything and everyone does. That is not an excuse to cut its budget, to introduce advertising, or to allow political interference. I’m glad we have a broadcaster which is independent of party allegiance and generally gives balanced coverage to different arguments.

If we want to tackle regressive taxation, we should focus on the much more expensive council tax.

Let’s backtrack here – the BBC is a major player in the global media marketplace and it already takes advertising on its non-UK outlets, which helps keep the size of the license fee down.

The Beeb has a competitive advantage internationally in that it has guaranteed levels of income and a commitment to more in-depth coverage than its rivals – not even CNN, Al-Jazeera and News Corp combined produce as much original news coverage and analysis.

So are we getting enough value for money from the fee we pay?

I think the fee could definitely be structured better by clarifying the difference between the public service information services and the pure entertainment function.

Today’s front pages encapsulate the debate.

I, for one, have never appreciated Russell Brand’s broadcasting qualities, but neither have I ever understood why his obvious commercial appeal as a performer made his excursions into broadcastland a good fit with the national corporation.

The current furore about his offensive attitude is deserved, but it is also a product of the dominant market position of the BBC, because if he were DJing elsewhere his indiscretions would attract as much attention as those of a real-life Alan Partridge – public funding assumes general endorsement, commerce takes what it can get (even if it means being discounted).

So Brand at the BBC was always going to come to this and Jonathan Ross should have been wise to this to prevent himself from getting led astray.

Yet do we get to read about how the BBC’s Persian service is being expanded (with additional funding to the same amount as Ross is being paid)?

If it came down to my personal choice I feel I get more value from TV, Radio and internet services which I don’t access and couldn’t understand than one which would be otherwise moderately compromised by a few additional breaks – if I was more cynical I’d say that Ross and Brand could potentially fall into both categories.

There is clearly a debate to be had over whether the license fee should survive or not. But I’m not clear how it is a “social liberal” versus “libertarian” issue, as it has been characterised here.

Surely even the most strident social liberal should accept that agressively chasing poor people for payment and even locking up single mothers is problematic? Surely we shouldn’t just shut down our critical facilities and say the license fee is fine, therefore it can be ramped up as much as the BBC says it needs to be? And if not, then surely there is a danger of political interference?

I’m disappointed that no-one has picked up on one of my proposals – set up a trust fund for the BBC based on the radio spectrum sell-off after the digital switchover and tax free donations from individuals. Surely even the most pro-license fee person would accept that even if such a fund couldn’t wholly fund the BBC by itself (actually I think it could if you were prepared to top it up with public funds in the short term), it would increase the BBC’s independence?

Augustine is reported to have commented “Oh Lord, Did I do enough ?” as he watched the smoke rise over Rome in 412 AD. I feel the same way about the BBC. For all its many faults the BBC remains

– An amazing british Global brand.

– A signifigant artistic subsidy

– a direct subsidy to national democracy

– a bulwark against the Americanisation and infantilisation of our culture.

Its also dirt cheap and already signifigantly defrays the cost of the licence fee from commercial income.

I beseech people to seperate out the Poll Tax element of the licence fee from the basic premise. Public money buying value, excellence and public sxervice via an arms length QUANGO.

How would I reform it ?

– mutualise the BBC giving every citizen an 18 a non transferable share in its newly set up Trust Status. Allow direct election to its national boards and regional panels set up to shadow local radio areas.

– allow tax free donations to the trust and encorage philanthropy

– Hypothocate a progressive tax on the luxury end of the electronic goods market which would be paid directly to the trust. set it at a counter cyclical level to keep things going through recessions. This would need to be put at arms length via Act of Parliament.

– strenthen the public service ethos in the act to mitigate agaionst the worst excesses of Celebrity come Fishing and anything by George Lamb.

a bulwark against the Americanisation and infantilisation of our culture.

Did you watch the local elections coverage this year?

the worst excesses of … George Lamb.

Tell me about it. Why couldn’t someone whip up a furore about him, instead of two presenters on a station I don’t like anyway? He makes a more offensive sound than Brand and Ross every day, just by presenting his show as normal.

“Allowing people in this country would be a pretty good idea too says a grumpy Mac user.”

Um… as a happy Linux user, I was rather under the impression that the Windows exclusivity had fallen by the wayside (though the crappy and not really worth bothering with download service is still Windows only).

Scrap it or reduce it. It will force the powers that be to be more creative (with the money we give them).

We do not need 175(?) Beeb employees in the US, however important the election is; Jonathan Ross is not worth £6,000,000p; Beeb management salaries should be scrutinised – is Mark T really worth more than the PM? (OK, bad questio!); taxi bills and spending on God knows what else could be cleaned up and create big savings and so forth.

If the BBC is really the zenith of broadcasting then they can afford to pay people less for the privilege of working/acting/appearing on its streamlined channels.

What a fascinating discussion. Rather than ‘I rather like their programmes, and their website is super’ or ‘it defends us from those ghastly American ways’, could the BBC’s supporters here come up with a principled defence of the licence fee; one that could actually justify a regressive, ‘taxation without representation’ tax? I don’t think ‘it works’ will cut it with those people who struggle to find the money. Please remember, you are supposed to be ‘liberal’ and ‘democrats’. ‘It works’ for whom?

The Licence Fee could be described as a “regressive tax”. So is car tax as this is not adjusted so the poor pay less.

People have a choice as to whether they own a car. They also have a choice as to whether they own a television. If you are too poor to buy a television and pay £10 a month for a TV Licence, don’t buy a television. Mind you, you will still be able to listen to BBC radio (which is paid for by the Licence Fee).

If you own and drive a vehicle with no tax disc, ultimately you might go to prison. If you own and watch a TV without a TV licence, ultimately you might go to prison.

At least with a TV Licence you know where your money is going – to the BBC. Car tax (and I could be wrong) goes into general taxation and is spent by Government on whatever it chooses.

Is this a “principled defence”?

The Licence Fee works as an ingenious way of ensuring that there’s high quality public service content for everyone (rather than just for elite groups) and that politicians can’t meddle in editorial.

Radio 2 is doing a lot of things that aren’t done in the commercial sector. The depth and diversity of its programming is huge. Where else could you get Chris Evans at one end of the spectrum and David Jacobs at the other not to mention music documentaries of real depth, comedy and almost every genre of music covered. While commercial radio has become homogenised, Radio 2 shows difference does work. You would never ever be able to achieve that purely in the commercial sector. I’m in favour of keeping the licence fee but re-focussing the money. Despite the huge salaries that keep being bandied about in the press, those of us who make programmes for the BBC (as independent suppliers) are increasingly making them on smaller and smaller budgets. I can’t go into detail for client confidentiality reasons but you can barely scrape a living as an independent radio producer. So keep the licence fee but plough the money more directly into programme making. As for the Ross/Brand affair, i’m sorry but it says more about the state of broadcast journalism in this country than it does about anything else. Our TV and radio journos should be following their own agendas not jumping on bandwagons. “One Story’ news is getting oh so very boring.

It’s all very well for someone who works for the BBC to pontificate about how you don’t have to have a television, but in my experience the level of harrassment the licensing agency give you if you don’t is intolerable. And of course that is how the system works – if it wasn’t enforced, the BBC wouldn’t get its money.

So yes, you don’t have to have a TV, but expect a lot of threatening letters, courtesy of the BBC, to arrive through your door if you do.

OK, you’ve rather enjoyed this road tax analogy, so let’s have a look at your argument.

‘People who say “I don’t watch the BBC so I shouldn’t pay the licence fee” are saying “I have a car but I don’t use all the roads so therefore I shouldn’t pay car tax”’.

This is sophistry.

1. Roads are a public good. Everyone uses roads, even if it’s just the way that the food is delivered to their supermarket. I agree that we should all pay for them.

2. I can’t use my car without using roads. I can use my TV without watching the BBC.

What these people are really saying is ‘I use my own car, I don’t see why I should pay for my neighbours’ cars’.

Let’s have a look at another argument:

‘The Licence Fee could be described as a “regressive tax”. So is car tax as this is not adjusted so the poor pay less.’

This one’s quite easily dismissed – road tax is unfair too.

To answer your question, no, it’s not principled. I want to watch Channel 4, but I’m taxed as if I’m watching the BBC. Should I pay for ‘The Economist’ if I read ‘Heat’ magazine? Well, you might say, you can always just not read magazines, but does that make it fair? Should I be taxed at Tesco to pay for Waitrose? Well, you might say, you can always not use supermarkets, but does that make it fair? The principle is not difficult to grasp.

Since car tax is unfair, are you going to campaign for its abolition and replacement with a pay as go/toll system where you only pay for the roads you use?

Like car tax, the small amount of unfairness in the licence fee system is compensated for by the large amount of public benefit that results.

But it’s a perfectly reasonable position to say that broadcasting is not a public good, and therefore should be left entirely for the market to provide.

Is this a “liberal” viewpoint? Is this a “liberal democrat” viewpoint?

And will it result in better broadcasting than we have now?

I don’t think you are being taxed “as if” you watch the BBC. You are being taxed because society has decided that public service broadcasting should be available to everyone, and that best way to provide that is through a compulsorary fee on everyone and for all the tax to go to the BBC, regardless of whether you individually actually watch the BBC.

Do you believe that public service broadcasting should NOT be available for everyone?

Or do you believe that not all the tax should go to the BBC? (In which case you should be avocating that it is shared, rather than abolished).

No, public service broadcasting is not a “public good” in the strict economic sense of the word. If it was, there would be no argument about paying for it out of a (hypothecated) element of income tax. The BBC could set its own rate, just as the police and fire authorities do for council tax.

Of course, not all public service broadcasting is actually paid for out of the license fee. It would be novel, to say the least, to hear a BBC employee argue that ITV and Channel Four should be entitled to a slice. Meanwhile, plenty of things which would not count as public service broadcasting in a million years, DOES come out of the license fee, or are we now expected to believe that Strictly Come Dancing and EastEnders exist for the improvement of our collective souls?

Furthermore, while you can choose whether or not you own a TV, you can’t choose to pay the license fee whether you watch the BBC or not.

I wouldn’t be quite so dubious about the license fee if its supporters weren’t so gung-ho about increasing it to ever greater levels. I’ve already suggested a solution that would, at the very least, stop it from getting out of control: a tax exempt trust paid for by the bandwidth sell off and topped up by individual contributions. I notice no licence fee defender has agreed with this suggestion so I can only presume they oppose it. But is it too much to ask why?

I doubt so many people would have a problem with the BBC license fee if it only concerned itself with public service broadcasting, but really, what percentage of the BBC’s total output can reasonably be claimed to be pubic service broadcasting?

A vanishingly small percentage in both terms of total air time and total cost, I’d have thought.

“I wouldn’t be quite so dubious about the license fee if its supporters weren’t so gung-ho about increasing it to ever greater levels”. Where’s your evidence for this statement James?

I believe that both Strictly and Eastenders are public service broadcasting.

If by “individual contributions” you mean “subscription”, then funding the BBC by subscription would undermine the commercial broadcasters which is one of many reasons why it’s not a good idea. See my comment above.

I think there are a lot of people in here who are saying that because they don’t like something, it’s not public service. This is bollocks. I can’t stand Eastenders, and do’t watch it, but am happy that it’s there. It brings up issues and social comment in a way that something like Question Time doesn’t and can’t. I also agree with pretty much everything else Nick has said, and I’m not a BBC employee.

Nick: a Liberal Democrat position is to have a bloody good row about it, generally

With regards to your first point, let’s leave discussion of road taxes to a different day.

Let’s have a look at part of your argument here:

‘society has decided that public service broadcasting should be available to everyone, and that best way to provide that is through a compulsorary fee on everyone and for all the tax to go to the BBC, regardless of whether you individually actually watch the BBC’

As somebody said before, your argument is circular:

The BBC and the licence fee should exist because society has decided it should exist as evidenced by the existence of the BBC and the licence fee.

Or do you have another justification for your statement?

In essence, this is what this debate is about: even if we ever did give our consent to the licence fee (a moot point), do we still give our consent? I’m arguing that it’s deeply unfair, and we shouldn’t. Whether we should have public service broadcasting or not is an entirely different matter, and one on which I have made no comment.

I think it’s entirely consistent with Liberal Democratic viewpoints that we should be considering the fairness of the licence fee.

“I can’t stand Eastenders, and don’t watch it, but am happy that it’s there. It brings up issues and social comment in a way that something like Question Time doesn’t and can’t.”

I’m not happy that it is there Jennie. I don’t think it is the role of the BBC to provide a running social commentary via the medium of a dreary and clichéd soap opera.

Here’s another case: Children in Need. Why does the BBC think it can monopolise national charitable giving at this time of the year? It’s hard to argue against what is presumably a good cause, but it’s totally inappropriate in my view.

‘My argument is that the licence fee is a little unfair (not deeply), but no more unfair than lots of other ways of paying for things which have a public benefit.’

Sorry, I never meant to suggest that you did think that it was deeply unfair. But I don’t know how you can justify the statement that it’s no more unfair than other ways of paying for things. It’s a regressive poll tax. I agree with Richard:

‘I am staggered at how otherwise compassionate people are happy to support a poll tax just because its public faces are David Attenbrough, Simon Schama and Basil Brush’

I feel sure that there are fairer ways of funding the BBC.

‘And that the unfairness is outweighed by the large amount of public benefit.’

You seem to think it’s the licence fee, or nothing. You can have the public benefit, without the licence fee.

‘You pay for public libraries out of your taxes. That’s unfair if you never use a library. Is that “deeply unfair” too?’

Not at all. I’m not saying that something that society has consented to paying for collectively is therefore unfair on people who don’t use it. I’m a democrat: that would be an untenable position. What is “deeply unfair” is the method of taxation.

@ Jennie

That’s a good question. You’ve grasped my point, which is just about the fairness of the licence fee. We can argue the pros and cons of hypothecated taxation. However, there’s no reason to equate it with the licence fee. Any fairer replacement could be hypothecated.

How unfair is the licence fee? “Deeply”? Or no more unfair than other ways of raising public money?

Andy – what ways of paying for the BBC would be fairer, would produce a BBC as good as we currently have, not undermine the commercial broadcasters, and maintain the BBC’s editorial independence from government?

“sounds to me like you don’t think that broadcasting is a public good”

Indeed, it is not; and while Mr Graham has alluded to this already…

A “public good” is not anything that a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians decide the state will take money for and (attempt to) provide.

A public good is one for which there is non-rivalry and non-excludability, in so far as either can exist.

Additionally, just because something is used by or affects a lot of the population, this also does not make it a “public good” nor a “public issue”.

The “debate” in Parliament yesterday on what the BBC should or should not be doing was absolutely farcical. Why do we elect politicians to have such ridiculous and futile discussions over what a television channel broadcasts? Can’t we think for ourselves and, you know, choose? Future generations are going to look back on this and think we were all completely insane.

It doesn’t matter how much you inflate the perceived social value of the BBC, it will never be enough to alter the inherent unfairness of forcing people who don’t want, don’t use and don’t value an entertainment service, because fundamentally that’s all it is, to pay for it for the benefit of those who do use it, or of criminalising those who can’t pay for it.

The BBC is not an essential service. It is not the road network. It is not the health service. It is not even the provision of public libraries. It is just an entertainment company.

Scrap the license fee and let the BBC compete how it likes.
Given that the BBC has been paid for for so long by tax money, I think its a nice idea to place it in public ownership – give each license holder an equal share in the privatised service.

I haven’t had a chance to read this thread, but I can guess at some of the objections-
One will be “the commoners don’t know what’s good for them so we must tax them to make good things” (usually put in terms of the evils of commercial media and the lowest common denominator fallacy).

Another will be “The BBC does all these things which commercial media doesn’t do” – well, who is going to try if a tax funded provider is doing them, its no competition, the BBC has a massive advantage and raises the barriers to entry enourmously.

The Beeb has become, by virtue of many of the senior people they employ, conceited, arrogant, closed-minded, hypocritical and condescending. Those who claim to offer choice, yet remove any by demanding unconditional payment. Who claim impartiality in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Iain (and others) have repeatedly hit the nail on the head, but until the public are actually given a choice, Auntie won’t be listening.

Nick Reynolds is a BBC employee which should show everyone just how corrupt the BBC is these days. Yes people the BBC does pay individuals to troll the internet and post untruths about the BBC in order to try and keep down discontent.

The BBC has become far too large, and has far too much influence over all of us – swamping the competition.
More to the point, with all its TV channels, radio stations, vast website, and that blasted iPlayer, it is probably the single biggest contributor to the massive increase in morbid obesity in the population (all ages) of this country.
Utopia – in the eyes of the fat cats of the BBC – is a constant supply of licence fee cash, and all its TV channels, radio stations, website, and iPlayer heading the ratings around the clock.
What with the “news is updated every five minutes” (what the hell for?), and constant trailers for “the one to watch tonight”/”coming on BBC2 tomorrow night”/”award-winning (says who?) drama starting on BBC 99 next Thursday” and – of course – the iPlayer “making the absolutely appalling unavoidable”, it is little wonder the nation is becoming overweight, morbidly obese, and workshy.
The BBC should carry a government health warning.
The sooner the licence fee goes to a more deserving cause (any cause is more deserving), the better. I would like to see it go to better equip our armed forces, and/or provide better care for the elderly.
PLEASE can someone start a boycott of the Licence Fee – you can count me in, and if it means prison, so be it.

To go back to Nick’s question about what might be more fair… the first question that needs to be asked is ‘what is public service broadcasting’?.

Evidentially the answer is not ‘what the BBC does’, nor is it likely to be ‘there is no such thing’. Any definition should be based on what the market doesn’t or can’t provide for which there is a wide consensus that it is socially useful… maybe news & education for example, but I think it would be hard to argue that the market doesn’t provide enough light entertainment.

If a definition of PSB can be agreed the next question is how it should be funded and for how much.

How much is a political toss-up, but I’d suggest the lottery fund might be more a more appropriate source than the license fee if not general spending within the DCMS budget. Another more quixotic idea might be a media monopoly tax that placed an escalating premium on corporation tax for market concentration. The more concentrated the market the more PSB funding to mitigate against that market failure.

Who should get that money…? It should be an open competition… and any programme in receipt of PSB funding cannot carry advertising. That way you might get the best of both worlds, the BBC would have to carry advertising on it’s market broadcasting, whilst Sky, ITV etc. could run shows without ads if from that source.

That system then discredits the BBC fantasy that they have to dominate every media market segement in order to provide the audience to justify the occasional Walking with Dinosaurs type show.

And there are many other options. However until the BBC starts addressing the modern world, where they are just one player amongst many in an international market, one that provides much good stuff, but are not unique in that, one that can quite happily mix public and private broadcasting, and don’t need their own tax to preserve their independence, then they can expect growing hostility from outside.

So under your plan BBC ONE would have adverts on but BBC FOUR would not?

Would BBC TWO take advertising?

Would perhaps certain programmes on BBC ONE – for example Gavin and Stacey – have adverts while the Ten O Clock News (which follows it) would not?

Apart from the fact that people like the BBC being free of advertising, your solution would probably put ITV out of business and would effect Sky’s revenues so you haven’t answered my point above about a solution that doesn’t damage the commercial broadcasters.

(Just so people are clear, I work for the BBC but these are my personal views and I am not doing this on work time)

I don’t know if BBC Four would or wouldn’t exist, or what advertising it would it wouldn’t carry, it would depend how public sector broadcasting was defined and whether the producers at BBC Four were any good at winning tenders. Similarly on your question on BBC2 it would rather depend what it produced.

It should though be a matter of blinding irrelevance to government policy how many channels the BBC deems itself fit to run and what programmes it puts in them. Those are matters for a regulator if those channels or programmes are in receipt of public money for public service.

The point about people liking the BBC being free of advertising is very dishonest of you. Given a choice people would like all TV to be free of advertising. I doubt though they would be happy to pay a massive tax to fund that.

It’s not then an argument in favour of either the BBC or how it is funded, simply a statement of the obvious that people prefer broadcasting to advertising. That preference though does not justify forcing people who don’t watch the BBC, ads or no ads, into paying for it. Particularly not with a poll tax on a piece of furniture.

For that you need a genuine public service justfication, and for that you must define what public service broadcasting actually is. As noted before, “it’s wot the BBC does” or “TV without ads but only on the BBC” is not coherent, fair, or reasonable.

I further note your point about the commercial broadcasters. Presumably you assume that deregulating the BBC and putting about 80% of it’s output into the commercial sector would crash the TV advertising market. I have to say this is economically illiterate.

While it’s certainly true prices would fall in the short-term it’s also true the market would have become markedly larger creating many more opportunities for different types of advertising. Lower advertising prices would further stimluate marketing budgets, overall the price of the pie might be lower, but the pie would be larger.

And you’ve also neglected the other salient feature of the plan to diversify PSB funding, ITV and Sky could bid for that money as well, so it is simply not clear that ITV or Sky would lose any money at all, they might offset any falls in their commercial revenue by winning tenders against the BBC for PSB funding. In that respect, they might even gain.

So return the questions to you…

Do you object to the notion that PSB should be properly defined?

Do you believe that properly defined PSB should be financed then from the public purse?

If so do you believe that only one organisation, the BBC, should receive that money or it should be open to competitive tender?

Nick Reynolds certainly seems to have alot of ‘personal’ time to search the net and put down discontent. Why not be truthful Nick and admit you have to say their your personal views because the BBC has had to admit they don’t pay people to troll the net doing what you are right now even though you work for the BBC blog team and as Google shows do this all over the internet!

I’m sure you have opened a lot of eyes here who are extremely annoyed at having to pay your wages if this is the only thing your able to do all day, everyday!. I hope others have noticed that Nick and other BBC employees keep pushing the same old pitch which is what about ITV and what about Sky, well what about them Nick it’s nothing to do with you and you can’t pretend to know exactly what will happen. I myself think the BBC would die if unable to force the public to pay for them and I won’t miss a thing!. Lets be honest if your precious employer is so great they’ll thrive under voluntary subscription so lets have it.

Unfortunately the Google search linked to is largely about a different Nick Reynolds who sadly died recently. This is a link to my personal blog in the unlikely event that you want to know more about me:

Firstly I object to your definition of “public sector broadcasting” as opposed to “public service broadcasting”.

ITV, C4 and C5 all currently have public service obligations but don’t currently get public money to fund them. And in the current Ofccom PSB review only C4 has asked for public funding, ITV and C5 have not. They want to remain funded by advertising and commercial revenue alone.

If you want a definition of public service broadcasting then “educate, inform and entertain” is good enough for me. The OFCOM PSB review offers many definitions but interesting these tend to be about things like UK origination rather than narrowly defined around types or genres of programmes.

The Licence Fee is not a poll tax on a piece of furniture. It’s levied on any device capable of recieving live TV. It’s about what you get, not what you get it on.

To answer your questions:

Do I think public service broadcasting should be properly defined? Yes, and there are plenty of good definitions around.

Do I think public service broadcasting should be financed from the public purse? Some of it, but by no means all of it. Commercial money can fund public service programmes.

Do I think any public money put into PSB should be put up for competitive tender? No, because I think this is a bad way of funding broadcasting. It increases red tape for one thing.

Should the BBC get all the licence fee? Yes.

Your solution sounds a bit like the “Arts Council of the Airwaves” idea which was ruled out by the Minister at the start of the year.

My personal opionion is you should be sacked with the rest of the people abusing their positions. You are clearly being paid by the BBC TV Licence to try to convert those that are extremly annoyed at having to pay for the likes of yourself!

In respect of defining PSB, I’ll buy inform and educate, but entertain…? Maybe in the 1940s, but we now have plenty of TV entertainment provided commercially. What possible justification is there for state-funded soap operas and reality TV? Both formats, I might add, invented by the private sector.

In respect of obligations, I agree the current system is messy, with different obligations on different broadcasters, but I don’t follow your logic that it’s good thing, particularly not now that network television no longer has a natural monopoly.

On your TV license definition, you rather duck tackling the problem that it is a poll tax, whether or not you are personally offended by the imprecision of the reference to furniture. I further don’t think highlighting that some wrist-watches and mobile phones fit the legal prescription helps your case. This is a mad bad tax left over from a world of near ubiquitous state monopolies, long gone.

You are right though that commercial money can fund PSB, and on your 1940s ‘state entertainment’ definition, well nearly everything that ITV and Sky do is apparently a warm-hearted public service, as is Triple-X-TV. My question though is should it, or should there be a level playing field between the BBC and other institutions to compete for that money? And frankly should the definition to be tighter to exclude light entertainment, porn and other items which evidentially don’t need public subsidy.

As for competitive tendering increasing red tape, could you enlighten us as to what proportion of the BBC staff base currently works directly in programming versus management and administrative functions?

The TV Licence is a poll tax. It bears no reraltion to ability to pay or even to the services used (there’s no radio or web licence).

There is a need for public service broadcasting. Just as their is a need for public subsidies to the arts, there are quality programmes that wouldn’t get on TV, or radio, without a public subsidy.

The conclusion must be to scrap the licence fee and fund public service braodacsting through general taxation. This could include local radio. Providers can bid to deliver the needs of public service broadcasts, with bids based not just on price but their record in communicating with key target audiencies.

The worldwide power of the BBC brand is enormous. Compare the respect for the BBC world service with any other country’s alternative. There may be a case for continuing to brand public service braodcasting with the BBC, but the case for it to be delivered by a single monolithic corporation has gone.

I surprised to find myself writing this, as one who generally objects to the the worship of the market in delivering public services. There is just too much on the BBC that has nothing to do with public services and compulsory taxes should not be funding them. With the arrival of multi-media, the TV licence is just out of date.

Scrap the TV licence, help people on low incomes and probably a great many other people too.

“The conclusion must be to scrap the licence fee and fund public service braodacsting through general taxation.”

“There is just too much on the BBC that has nothing to do with public services and compulsory taxes should not be funding them.”

In the words of the Virgin Mary – come again.

Oh no, I see, is the point that much stuff the BBC produces isn’t a “public service”, so it should be scrapped, but some of it is, so should be funded?

In which case who decides this? No, don’t tell me – committees? And what if we disagree with these committees who are throwing our money, sorry, “public money”, around as they wish? Ah yes, we can debate it through the media, especially when the Daily Mail gets all offended after a hairy nimpho-comedian reminds the world that they wrote kindly about the Nazis.

I gave examples in the Nursery Britain thread of the nanny state retreating; the scrapping of ID cards, ration books, the death penalty and national service. It’s hard not to group the TV license with these.

Mill wrote that a good test of the public institutions was if they increased the moral and intellectual virtues of the population. The BBC clearly does not do this. Yes, it produces some excellent stuff, especially nature programmes. But this is drowned out by the torrent of tawdry, celebrity-focused rubbish. It would not be an exaggeration to say that it proselytises a celebrity-obsessed lifestyle.

I remember feeling guilty as a child that I was not interested in the ‘latest showbiz gossip’ that was already creeping into the BBC’s children’s output. Now young people are even more aggressively targeted. The Newsround website has an entire category dedicated to ‘showbiz’ news, containing such edifying stories as ‘Ashlee Simpson names baby Bronx’ and ‘Madonna: Is she the Queen of pop or just plain past it?’

The BBC has already tried rubbishing this because it wasn’t carried out by one of their flavoured companies which are run by former BBC employee’s like the ‘Work Foundation’. It should send alarm bells ringing that the government and the BBC never use YouGov, Mori or ICM to get a true reflection of the hatred the public feels towards them and the BBC TV Licence –

5 Do you think the BBC’s £139.50 TV licence fee is good value for money?

Why would we scrap the best media service in the world. Let’s be honest 124 a year is cheap in comparison to the alternatives. Radio, tv and new media no one else can even come close…..and all the surplus gets put back in rather than lining some greedy deep pockets.

The only thing the BBC should do is pay it’s top stars less and if the argument for keeping them is to keep them from moving to sky or itv….then let them go.

Scrapping the licence fee is not a matter of “if” but “when”
BBC is not what it once was – partly because society is changing
The media streams are changing also – this is why the BBC wants to charge via the internet
It’s a laughing joke now. The licence fee is archaeic and is coming to an end
Conservatives have promised a 1 year freeze on the licence fee
Labour have said they “might” scrap the licence
Lib-Dems???????????

i sat down and watched (the one show) for the first time tonight, and to my disgust they showed an outside broadcast on a tv the size of my living room this is where every ones money is going SCRAP THE LICENCE FEE NOW IT IS VILE

When so much of the rest of our media is owned by far-right non-doms, I shudder to think what would happen to our democracy if it ceased to exist in its current form. It’s tempting to think that the public service element would survive if the popular programming were removed, but, in the medium term, I don’t think it would.
Am I uncomfortable with the license fee? Yes. But I’m even more uncomfortable with the risk of jeopardising something enormously valuable to our nation.

I think the bbc is a vile out of date out touch organization that has the government on its payroll, and it should be held to account. They do not know what value for money means, or what quality programming means they just spend (our money) on absolute crap (eastenders) TIME TO SCRAP THE WHOLE OUTFIT and let people make their own choices.FORCE THEM TO FIND THEIR OWN REVENUE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

There is a lot of unfairness about this licence fee: I will outline why i believe the BBC Licence is unfair. Remember all heads of the household pay £145-50 per year every year for a BBC Licence neglecting future increases. Lets look at some of these heads of households. 1. A family of 4 adults sharing a home (4 salaries coming in) One person pays – Not a problem. 2. Two elderly people living together on two basic state pensions (Can be a problem but not to worrying) One dies, therefore the house is reduced to one state pension (then it becomes a problem) 3. Students having to pay every year on top of their student loans (This can be a problem as they are up to their neck in debt) They also have to pay for rented accomodation etc 4. Single parents – one source of income – bringing up children (Then it becomes a problem) All these people have the same things in common, they have to pay for energy, food, council tax etc. Have you seen the millions the BBC spend on generating computer generated threatening letters from their office based in bristol, together with enforcement officers chasing up and down the UK knocking on doors and threatening these people with Court Action. If you look at case 1. Here we have 3 adults paying nothing (The household pays the same £145-50 per year, whilst in cases 2, 3, 4 these people on reduced incomes have to pay the same. In case 1, there can be salaries totaling over £120K average whereas in cases 2 and 4 there is only one low income. In case 3 these people are in debt and don’t need this! That is in part why this tax is unfair and it is pushed on to people, by highly paid lawyers working for the BBC via parliament. All this burocracy has to be paid for out of the same BBC Licence. So i would conclude that the system needs overhauling

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic
and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here.
Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to
show this. You must be registered for our forum and can
then login on this public site
with the same username and password.